Unapologetic RA chair slams Israel Folau for 'misrepresenting facts'

Rugby Australia's chairman has hit back at Israel Folau and his PR campaign, and defended the sporting body's actions, claiming that failure to act after his homophobic and transphobic comments threatened the very livelihood of the game.

Speaking to Sydney Morning Herald, Cameron Clyne said Folau's repeated offensive social media activity which breached his contract, put RA in a difficult position that left them at odds with numerous employees, sponsors and rugby stakeholders, including the government, which provides funding to the organisation.

"[The alternative] would be that we'd have no sponsors at all because no sponsor has indicated they would be willing to be associated with social media posts of that sort and that includes government, because we've also heard from them," Clyne said.

"We would also potentially be in litigation with employees who are gay and who would say we're not providing a work place that is safe or respectful."

Israel Folau arrives for a conciliation hearing at the Fair Work Commission in Sydney (AAP)

Clyne opened up following the failed mediation talks between Folau and RA on Friday, where the former rugby star is now expected to file an unlawful termination claim in the Federal Court.

The chairman also slammed Folau's "soft ball PR interviews", such as his TV appearance with Alan Jones on Sky News this week, where he allegedly misrepresented the facts of the case and made statements vehemently refuted by RA.

Folau claimed on the show that he was offered money by RA to remove the Instagram post which said that homosexuals would go to hell.

"What is frustrating is that as the governing body we have a long term obligation to protect the integrity of the game, which means we have to play by the rules," Clyne said.

"We've got a lot of people misrepresenting facts, or deliberately ignoring them, you've got soft ball PR interviews with blatant misrepresentations, but that's not the game we can play.

"We've never given up on mediation, we've made many attempts, but we've also got to remember that this is bigger than Israel Folau, we have a duty to every other professional and community player in the game. We can't accept a scenario where contracts become arbitrary."

Folau: 'I felt backed into a corner'

Folau also said he was expecting an apology in their meeting on Friday, something that Clyne and RA was not willing to give.

"I'm not sure exactly what we're apologising for, I don't quite understand that request," he said.

"We've provided a player with opportunities and asked him to adhere to a contract and a generous one at that. Israel was not sacked for his religion, he was sacked for a breach of his contract."

Clyne reiterated that RA was attempting to avoid a lengthy and costly legal case, "for the good of the game".

"We've been open to [a mediated solution] from the get go but there's obviously two different perspectives on that," Clyne said.

"We are looking at it from the good of the game as a whole. No one is suggesting this is helpful but I would go back to Israel Folau's comments from last year [in April 2018] when he said if it was hurting the game he'd walk away for the good of the game.

"Since this issue has emerged I've asked those who've said we should have taken a different response to suggest what that alternative was and so far no one has been able to do that.

"But to those who are saying you should bankrupt the game and allow religious freedom, well we do allow religious freedom but what we don't allow is disparagement and that's clear under [Folau's] contract."

Folau is rapidly losing support: 5 Mins with Fitzy

Clyne also defended the sporting body's process that led to RA and Folau's current stalemate.

“There was an initial breach last year, we went through a process of discussing that breach and outlining Israel's obligations under his contract," Mr Clyne said.

"We had an independent tribunal, which went through 22 hours of evidence and thousands of pages of documentation, that indicated our decision was correct, that the player was given the opportunity to understand what his responsibilities under the contract was.

"There is nothing good about the place we're in but the scenario in which we wave that breach through would be far worse. I would also say that we didn't bring this situation on, we didn't press send on this [post]."